Re: [Pana] I-D Action: draft-yegin-pana-unspecified-addr-05.txt

Hello,

 > The largest PANA message is possibly not the very first PAR
 > from the PAA (unlike the current draft states). Such a PAR can
 > be carrying a EAP-Request/Identity, hence not really be caring
 > a minimum EAP MTU size.  A subsequent PAR can be carrying
 > that (and it'd not have the Integrity-Algorithm, PRF-Algorithm,
 > and Token AVPs).
 >
 > Are you using the same reasoning for your above suggestion?
Yes. To shorten a PANA Message, we can send an EAP-Payload AVP in
another PANA Message.

Strictly speaking, RFC 5191 has no upper limit on the number of
PRF-Algorithm AVPs and Integrity-Algorithm AVPs which are
contained in a PAR. The size of a PANA message might be the
maximum size of the UDP data... Is this correct?

[Figure 4, RFC 5191]
    The table uses the following symbols:

    0     The AVP MUST NOT be present in the message.

    0-1   Zero or one instance of the AVP MAY be present in the message.
          It is considered an error if there is more than one instance of
          the AVP.

    1     One instance of the AVP MUST be present in the message.

    0+    Zero or more instances of the AVP MAY be present in the
          message.

                          +---------------------------+
                          |        Message Type       |
                          +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    Attribute Name        |PCI|PAR|PAN|PTR|PTA|PNR|PNA|
    ----------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
    AUTH                  | 0 |0-1|0-1|0-1|0-1|0-1|0-1|
    EAP-Payload           | 0 |0-1|0-1| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
    Integrity-Algorithm   | 0 |0+ |0-1| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
    Key-Id                | 0 |0-1|0-1| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
    Nonce                 | 0 |0-1|0-1| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
    PRF-Algorithm         | 0 |0+ |0-1| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
    Result-Code           | 0 |0-1| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
    Session-Lifetime      | 0 |0-1| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
    Termination-Cause     | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
    ----------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+

    Figure 4: AVP Occurrence Table

Best,
Yasuyuki Tanaka

(2012/02/09 18:11), Alper Yegin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thank you for the review and feedback.
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:44 AM, Yasuyuki Tanaka wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have four comments about the draft. I put them at the bottom of
>> this mail. Please see them.
>>
>> Best,
>> Yasuyuki Tanaka
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> (1) Page 4, Paragraph 1
>> It would be helpful to add text about the source port number and the
>> destination port number of the PCI as below.
>>
>> [edited]
>>   Step 1: The PaC initiates PANA by sending a broadcasted PCI carrying
>>   a Token AVP that contains a random value generated by the PaC.
>>
>> ! The source IPv4 address of the PCI is set to 0.0.0.0. The source
>> ! port number is chosen by the PaC. The destination IPv4 address is
>> ! set to 255.255.255.255. The destination port number is the PANA port
>> ! number (716).
>>
>> [original]
>>   Step 1: The PaC initiates PANA by sending a broadcasted PCI carrying
>>   a Token AVP that contains a random value generated by the PaC.
>>
>>   The source IPv4 address of the PCI is set to 0.0.0.0.  The
>>   destination IPv4 address is set to 255.255.255.255.
>>
>
>
> OK.
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> (2) Figure 1, Page 4
>>
>> If the PAA want to initiate re-authentication, PAA have to know PaC's
>> IPv4 address which is configured by DHCP.
>>
>> It would be better that Figure 1 has messages related to "PaC Updating
>> Its IP Address" described in Section 5.6, RFC 5191.
>>
>> [Section 5.6. in RFC 5191]
>>   After the PaC has changed its IP address used for PANA, it MUST send
>>   any valid PANA message.  If the message that carries the new PaC IP
>>   address in the Source Address field of the IP header is valid, the
>>   PAA MUST update the PANA session with the new PaC address.  If there
>>   is an established PANA SA, the message MUST be protected with an
>>   AUTH AVP.
>
>
> Let us consider that.
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> (3) Page 6, Paragraph 3
>>
>> I have no idea which PAR should have 'I' bit. Every PAR sent by
>> PAA should have 'I' bit? Or, only a PAR with 'C' bit should have
>> 'I' bit? (I think the latter is preferable.)
>>
>> I've referred to RFC 5191, but I've not found the answer.
>>
>
> I think this is an ambiguity with the RFC 5191. PAR with 'C' bit makes sense.
>
>
>> [original]
>>   The PAA SHALL set the 'I' (IP Reconfiguration) bit of PAR messages
>>   in authentication and authorization phase so that the PaC proceeds
>>   to IP address configuration.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> (4) Page 6, Paragraph 7
>> I don't think that the description about the size of the largest PANA
>> is correct. This is because the initial PAR could have multiple
>> Integrity-Algorithm AVPs and PRF-Algorithm AVPs. This specification is
>> described in Section 4.1, RFC 5191.
>>
>> [Section 4.1. in RFC 5191]
>>    the PAA sends the initial PANA-Auth-Request carrying one or more
>>    PRF-Algorithm AVPs and one or more Integrity-Algorithm AVPs for the
>>    PRF and integrity algorithms supported by it, respectively.
>>
>> In my understanding, it is sufficient to consider a PANA Message which
>> has only one EAP-Payload AVP for "Message Size Considerations". In
>> other words, the minimum PANA MTU size is equivalent to the size of a
>> PANA message which has only one EAP-Payload AVP.
>>
>
>
> We are trying to find the the size of the largest PANA message.
> The largest PANA message is possibly not the very first PAR from the PAA (unlike the current draft states).
> Such a PAR can be carrying a EAP-Request/Identity, hence not really be caring a minimum EAP MTU size.
> A subsequent PAR can be carrying that (and it'd not have the Integrity-Algorithm, PRF-Algorithm, and Token AVPs).
>
> Are you using the same reasoning for your above suggestion?
>
> Alper
>
>
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pana mailing list
>> Pana@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana
>